Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:
...
However, I believe it doesn't make sense to decrease the quality of a
specification by removing code that is only available under, say, the
GPL. That works against the goals of the IETF of having
specifications implemented widely and quickly. Some code is better
than no code in a document.
The specific problem with GPL is that if GPLed code is included
in a standard, any implementor who cannot accept the risk
of GPL contamination in his or her code is going to have a heck
of a time understanding the standard without inadvertently reading
the GPL code.
If you are required to read code to understand a standard, I'd say the
standard is already too inadequate for further consideration, and
should never be published anyway. I believe we should assume that
standards continue to have high quality.
Further, it seems you are talking about a patent situation. There is
no problem in reading and running GPL'd code and trying it out against
your proprietary or BSD licensed code. It is only if you distribute
the GPLed code in a product that the reciprocal terms of GPL apply.
It might be necessary to have a colleague outside the clean room
blank out those sections of the RFC first. I think we should avoid
that.
Sure, but that is not the case. That's the situation with patents,
but not with copyrights.
As already observed, it can be avoided by contributing the code
to the IETF process directly instead of via a GPLed document.
Nobody is forced to put their code under GPL before contributing
it to the IETF.
Sure, and I absolutely agree. What I'm talking about is when that
situation did not happen and was not feasible.
/Simon